One of the things I like about Garth Ennis is that, as a writer, he steadfastly refuses to write slow, lazy arcs around potentially offensive subtopics. What we have here is a fairly subtle and just simply well-written example of this.

The subtopic in question here is “Superman is a Christian.” (And, given that he was raised in Kansas, the odds are pretty good that he’s a Methodist. Although, given his emphasis on deeds over words, he might make a good Catholic as well. Really, this sort of thing is fun!)

Now, there’s a long and proud history of the stupidly fake Kryptonian religion in DC Comics, based around Rao, the godly personification of Krypton’s sun, and all of it exists for one reason: people weren’t comfortable writing Superman as a Christian. This is understandable, considering that Superman was created by a couple of Jews in the first place, and that we often recognize that comics history is a gradual, accumulated thing. One of the biggest reasons for this? It wasn’t until the first Superman movie that Smallville was finally and definitively located in Kansas. Prior to that, it was in Generic Rural Location, U.S.A., although occasionally comic writers would hint at its location being in rural Maryland. (Mostly because they wanted it to be somewhat close to Metropolis, which for a very long time was supposedly in Delaware – although, with Smallville unapologetically placing Metropolis in Kansas as well, this might change over the next few years.)

But nowadays, we’re coming up on thirty solid years of Superman being raised in small-town Kansas. It’s become an accepted part of the canon, unthinkable to ditch. Much as in Batman continuity, Arkham Asylum only dates back to the mid-70s, and Alfred Pennyworth being a coolly competent English butler rather than a comic prop only to the mid-80s – these are all relatively recent additions to comics canon, but sometimes, things just stick. Harley Quinn, along with the other minor story tweaks introduced by the animated Batman cartoon, is probably the best and most recent example of something just glomming onto canon in this manner.

In Superman canon, Lex Luthor has only been a ruthless business genius for about twenty years, but it’s stuck just as firmly as Kansas did, and this in spite of the fact that a lot of top-name writers obviously wish he could just be a boring old mad scientist again. (Sorry, but Tycoon Luthor is just an endlessly more interesting variation on the character, guys. Deal with it.)

Now, with that greater detail of geographic certainty placing Smallville more definitively (and if you’re a detail nut, you can not only place Smallville in Kansas, but even give a good geographic guess as to which county it’s supposed to be in), this narrows down the demographics of the Kents. Having Superman exclaim “Great Rao!” as a euphemism for a mild religious blasphemy is cute, but it also served as as a signal that, in previous modes of storytelling, Superman was a generic stand-in. Maybe Smallville was a small town filled with Lutherans. Or Quakers. Or Seventh-Day Adventists. Or Jews. (Okay, Siegel and Shuster aside, Smallville probably wasn’t Jewish.) When Smallville was just an idea rather than a fictionalized location, this was more possible…

…but nowadays, with continuity being what it is, it’s kind of dumb. Superman was raised by a prototypical small-town couple in Kansas. Jonathan and Martha Kent are supposed to exemplify small-town America in every way except for being truly virtuous people, all the better to serve as example for young Clark. On balance of probabilities, the exceptional likelihood is that the Kents are practicing Christians, and given Superman’s personal belief system before you attach a religion to it, that goes for him as well. Besides which, religious belief tends to be inertious, and a conversion to Raoism (or whatever you call it) would require a pretty serious life event for Superman to realistically do such a thing.

(On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for Supergirl to swear in Rao’s name, what with her having been raised in the faith and all.)

So, Superman’s a Christian. Now, a shitty writer would make a big deal out of this. I can just see twenty-two pages from some drama-producer about how Superman’s Christianity makes him a hypocrite, for example. Or, worse, a crossover with Zauriel WHERE ONLY SUPERMAN’S RELIGIOUS BELIEF CAN blah blah blah Armageddon-cakes.

Garth Ennis, on the other hand, plays it as it lays. He doesn’t need to write some dramatic toss about Superman’s angst or anger with God or whatever. He just ends his comic with Superman flying up to the moon to pray for Tommy Monoghan, because Ennis understands that prayer, like all human activity, is ultimately an expression of the self, and doesn’t have to be especially noteworthy. It’s not something you overlook; it’s just something you add, another level to understand the character on. It doesn’t have to be a story hook. It just has to be there.

And that’s why Ennis can write rings around most comic superhero writers when he feels like it.

15 users responded in this post

Thanks. Ennis has long been one of my favorite writers, and this little two-part mini kind of astonished me. He seemed to just get the main figures of the JLA and what their dynamic would be like when they’re not holding hands and singing Kumbaya. He seemed to get Daredevil, for that matter, and Spider-Man too.

(I will take a slight exception to “deeds not words,” being a Methodist myself — what attracted me to the church was its emphasis on social justice. This may just be my particular church, or the conference around these parts, but action is a big part, along with the study.)

What I meant there, Ken, is that so far as I’ve always known one of the distinguishing features of Catholicism from the various strains of Protestantism is the requirement of demonstration of faith through good works. I’m not attempting to suggest that Protestant churches don’t do stuff – of course they do – but so far as action might be emphasized as a good idea in many sects, so far as I’m aware it’s not considred to be a required element.

It was interesting, after so many misfires of late, to see Ennis writing so effortlessly again. I don’t think I’ve looked forward to a single issue of any comic as much as I did the second JLA/Hitman book. For me, it more than makes up for the nigh-unreadable Seven Brothers and Avatar Press stuff.

Ennis was unable to overcome his contempt for Kyle Rayner, to the extent of turning Wally’s light rivalry with Kyle into abject abuse. He seemed to have a handle on Superman and Batman, but the rest of the League was mischaracterized or not characterized at all.

Dan: I’ve actually heard speculation that perhaps this mini had been sitting on the shelf for awhile, and only recently came out for… reasons unspecified. There’s no reason to weigh this rumor with anything like authenticity, but who knows, right? I will say McCrea’s art looked more mature than anything else of his I’ve seen, excepting possibly The Atheist.

Candid: I actually thought Kyle came off pretty good in this series, unlike Ennis’s previous treatment of him. He acts as a voice of reason, concerned about the more human angle in everything, which the more experienced members take to be a sign of naivete. And Superman’s and Wonder Woman’s exchange re: whether or not they’re soldiers/warriors was, I felt, deeply illuminating on both of them.

Uh, Jim, Stern can also write rings around most comic superhero writers when he feels like it. The point isn’t that this is groundbreaking – the point is that this is effortlessly mature writing as regards his treatment of Superman.

The little touch was so good (HOW GOOD WAS IT?) that you don’t even notice it until it’s past. Looking back, I’m surprised I didn’t even question Superman’s spiritual beliefs. It just seemed like the Right Thing To Do because the writer had a lead on the characterization.
Thanks.

As long as no one makes Supes a Republican, I’m ok with him being Christian. You’re right. It only makes sense, regardless of what state Smallville is/was in. Having grown up in a small town in Pennsylvania myself, I can vouche for the continuity of it.

Also…depending on what age the writer is depicting Supes as, I can’t help but think he’d be loyal to what he’s known most of his life. That, and his love and loyalty to the Kents, would have him honoring the religion he was raised in.

Honestly, I do like the touch, but on the whole I feel religion/politics aren’t needed unless it is integral to the plot or character and should probably be left alone. However, the fact that this was shown in narrative boxes pushes the point that Supes’ religion is ultimately no one’s business but his.

And here I just thought that line was Ennis riffing on a Pogues lyric. Specifically, from the end of “The Limerick Rake,” when the song asks the Rake’s children to “gather around and … offer a prayer to the Lord for the soul of their Father.” I like your interpretation better, though. I also liked the book, which surprised me, as I have become as tired of reading Ennis’s superhero work as he seems to be of writing it. Nothing against Ennis or his writing, it just seems that he can’t stand superheroes and when he writes them, it shows. In closing though, since I STRONGLY dislike Tycoon Luthor as a character concept, I would love to see you expand more on why you find this version of the character more fertile ground for stories than OG Mad Science Luthor.

Rob McK, most of my exposure to DC characters has come through watching the cartoons. If those reflect how Luthor is portrayed in the comics fairly well, I’d say Tycoon Luthor is better, and here is why I think so.

For starters, impoverished evil geniuses aren’t much of a threat. So if Luthor or anybody else is going to build crap to aid in his or her supervillainy, it helps to have money.

Second, I find that villains who showcase little or no emotion and who aren’t easily rattled are scarier and better. That’s as opposed to villains who rant and rave, who obsess over getting their revenge on the hero, who throw tantrums when their plans fall apart. Tycoon Luthor is more of the former (although he has thrown the occasional undignified tantrum after everything went wrong for him), whereas I think Mad Scientist Luthor was more of the latter. One reason is that whenever a villain is seen venting like that, they are practically admitting to the world and those of us reading the book “Fuck, I’ve been defeated! Damn it all to hell, I’ve lost! I hate losing! Why can’t I ever win?!” It can be laughable, pitiful, or a combination of both. But if a villain just shrugs his shoulders and treats it as a minor setback, he doesn’t seem defeated. He still seems like he could be trouble, like maybe he’s got something up his sleeve that will be revealed later. It can make you a little worried.

Third, this is Superman we are talking about. You can build yourself a set of armour, you can stockpile as much kryptonite as you can scrape together, you can try to beat him physically. But in all likelihood, you will fail. Because, you know, he’s frickin’ Superman. Luthor does not want to face him one on one if he can help it, nor does anybody else with any brains.

If Luthor has money, if he can manipulate the system to his advantage as the Kingpin has done in the Marvel universe, Luthor is much more formidable.